The weekend before His Passion, Jesus went and stayed with His friend Lazarus
(whom He had raised from the dead) and Lazarus' sisters Martha and Mary. Mary
brought out a very expensive flask of ointment for the dead and applied it to
Jesus' feet with her hair. The whole house was filled with the sweet smell of
that ointment. And guess who gets all mouthy about this? Yep. Judas Iscariot -
who already was planning to sell out Jesus, and had been planning on cashing in
on Him since the miracle of the loaves and fishes a few days earlier.
Specifically, when Jesus told the people that they must eat His Flesh and drink
His Blood, and kept repeating it over and over and over again to be sure that
everyone understood that He meant it literally, Judas (with urging from satan)
decided that Our Lord was nuts and started planning to betray Him and profit
from it. That whole episode is in John chapter 6. Read it.

Back to Lazarus' house in John 12. Judas gets all holier-than-thou and
complains that the flask of ointment could have been sold for 300 pence and
"given to the poor". Does this not sound like the godless Marxist liberals of
today who are so quick to tell everyone else what they should be doing with
their money and assets, all in the name of the poor, of course?

Then, an absolutely delightful verse - verse 6:

"Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a
thief, and having the purse, carried the things therein."

Um, hello? The Holy Spirit is talking to us. Are we listening? That verse
should make the hair on your arms stand up. Is this not a PERFECT mapping to our
contemporary situation? You have a "disciple" who doesn't really believe in
Jesus or what He says - he just pretends to because he thinks he can gain power
and wealth by associating with Jesus for now. He's just working the "Jesus
angle". But everything he is doing behind the scenes is working in direct
opposition to Our Lord. Now, this "disciple" starts trying to appear pious and
devout by pontificating that all wealth and resources should, by definition, be
redistributed to "the poor". But in truth, he is just a thief.

Dude. Can this be any more obvious?

Now here is the key passage from Jesus Himself:

"Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of
My burial. For the poor you have always with you; but Me you have not always."

First of all, Jesus says, "Let her alone." (Sinite illam.)
Judas has appointed himself the arbiter of wealth and asset distribution and
has decided that Mary's flask of ointment (or the cash value thereof) should
have gone to the poor. And Jesus says, "Let her alone."

It is hers to do with as she (and her family) sees fit, and they have seen
fit to use it to anoint their beloved Jesus.

Judas, sit down and shut your proto-Marxist piehole. THWAP!
In the next phrase, Jesus explains economics in eight words
(FIVE in Latin):

"For the poor you have always with you."

(Pauperes
enim semper habetis vobiscum.)
What does He mean? Does He mean, "Bah, forget the poor! Live it up!"

Absolutely not. What He is explaining is that in all free societies wealth
will always exist within a SPECTRUM.

Let's compare a "poor" person in the U.S. to a "poor" person in Bangladesh. A
poor person in Bangladesh lives in the gutter without so much as a cardboard
shelter to sleep under. They are sick from malnutrition and starvation. They
probably dress in rags, and certainly do not own a pair of shoes. Bathing only
occurs when they can immerse themselves in a river, which is opaque with sewage.
They own nothing except the rags that they wear. Every day is a struggle to get
a bit of clean water and enough food to merely survive. That's a poor person in
Bangladesh.

What constitutes a "poor" person in the U.S.? A poor person in the U.S. does
not have cable. A poor person in the U.S. does not have broadband internet
access, and may not even own a PC. A poor person in the U.S. may have just
within the last year or two finally switched from a cathode ray tube television
to a flat screen, digital model. A poor person in the U.S. receives food stamps,
medicaid and a welfare check. A poor person in the U.S. is probably overweight.
A poor person in the U.S. drives a car that is so old that it came with a
factory cassette player. A poor person in the U.S. lives either in a trailer or
a HUD apartment complex. A poor person in the U.S. probably DOES have a cell
phone.

Understand that on a percentage level, these two descriptions are equivalent.
A "poor" person in the U.S. has a standard of living that would be considered
luxurious in Bangladesh and other impoverished countries. The notions of
"wealth" and "poverty", by logical and mathematical definition, exist within a
SPECTRUM. And no matter what we do, that spectrum will always, always exist.
That is what Jesus is saying. There will always be a top-end, and there will
always be a bottom-end. In some nations (like Bangladesh), that spectrum is very
broad and reaches very far down into poverty, indeed. There are billionaires in
Bangladesh, and there are people starving in the gutters in rags. In the U.S.,
we certainly have a wealth spectrum, but the low end is much higher and the
spectrum is much narrower. We have many billionaires, but our lower-end is
nowhere NEAR as low as Bangladesh's.

The point is, no matter how much you bring up the bottom-end, there will
ALWAYS, by mathematical definition, BE a bottom-end. If the bottom-end was a
$100,000 per year household income and a $300,000 home in today's dollars, then
a household with a $100,000 income and a $300,000 home would be considered
"poor", called "poor", and Marxists would tell those "poor" that they were being
"oppressed" and "deserved" and were "entitled to" a $500,000 annual household
income and an $800,000 home. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Someone is always going to have more money and assets than somebody else. It
is impossible to have a free society wherein every person has exactly the same
level of wealth. Someone has to be the business OWNER, and someone has to be the
EMPLOYEE. Someone has to be the wage PAYER and someone has to be the wage
EARNER. If everyone in a culture was economically equal at all times, there
would be zero employment because no one would work for anyone except themselves.
You can't have a company with 10,000 CEOs. Conversely, you can't have a company
that is nothing but entry-level laborers. Someone has to be responsible. Someone
has to sign the paychecks. Someone has to determine the course of the business.
Someone has to risk their assets and wealth to start-up the company in the first
place. And, at the other end, someone has to scrub the toilets. The only way to
get true, complete equality of wealth would be to kill EVERYBODY.

Since we know from Jesus that there will always be a wealth spectrum, it is
obviously disordered to eliminate said spectrum and collapse it down to a single
point of "economic equality". To do that would collapse the society itself and
result is chaos and poverty for ALL. (Ahem, MARXISM, TYRANNICAL OLIGARCHY,
cough, cough.)

What then should the objective be? I think that the former-U.S. and other
free-market capitalist societies were the closest humanity has ever been to the
ideal, and though imperfect, are certainly pointed in the right direction. The
ideal is a healthy wealth spectrum that is always moving higher through growth
and moral technological advancements and innovations, is open-ended on the top
side, but has an intrinsic morality such that the top-end of the wealth spectrum
always makes certain that the bottom end advances apace and that the spectrum
maintains its proportional width - or even narrows a bit. This is achieved
through personal charity AND through a moral, lawful society that allows for
movement both up AND down the spectrum.

The top-end cooperates with the bottom end to enable upward mobility for
those who work hard, and are innovative. Conversely, if someone on the top-end
does not work hard or is dishonest in his dealings, he can and will fail and
slide back down the spectrum.

This freedom of movement within the spectrum - both up AND down - is
essential. Trapping people on the low-end (ahem, cough, WELFARE STATE,
CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY, OBAMA REGIME, cough) is equally as immoral as the
disgusting patrician upper-classes who think themselves immune from morality,
the rule of law or personal responsibility (ahem, cough, OBAMA REGIME AND ENTIRE
POLITICAL CLASS, cough, cough).

So, there you go. Economics as explained by our Blessed Lord in five little
words while He was hanging out at His friends' house having supper the weekend
before He died. And proof that Judas Iscariot was the intellectual father of
Marxism and of scumbag politicians in general.

I was wondering why the organizers of the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show were so incredibly stupid as to shoot themselves in both feet with Sidewinder missiles tipped with plutonium. But now I get it...

First, lemme say, this is what happens when you let Brits run gun or gun related companies, they ALWAYS sell out at some point, that’s what happened with Smith & Wesson when they sold out to the Clintons, they were owned by Tompkins PLC. Limeys don’t get the gun thing, they just don’t. Thankfully, a proper ‘Murican company bought S&W and revived it, Tomkins had to fire sale S&W for a small fraction of what they bought it for.

Anyway, bunch of companies and hunting and outdoor and shooting names and celebs are bailing on the ESOS show, Cabelas was probably the first of the big names to bail, but more and more are, and today, Ruger and Smith & Wesson have announced they’re bailing.

I will say, on the face of it, it’s most important to have the big names pull their support of ESOS, but we NEED to be aware of and support the little companies that are bailing out of the ESOS show, this is an annoyance to a Cabelas or S&W or Ruger (though certainly it costs them too, I’m NOT dismissing that), but being forced to make a decision like this is heavily damaging to a small company, many of which don’t even sell firearms. They deserve recognition for defending the Second.

There was a time when you could actually find a testicle or two in Britain. Those days are over. Luckily, the USA still has a bunch of people and companies who understand that if we do not hang together, we will all hang separately.

Read this list. If you need something, see if these folks carry it, and give 'em your business.

27 January 2013

It teaches the unity of men, when the power of the left comes from dividing by race or color or creed.

It acknowledges God as the source of our freedom and free will, rather than the state or another giving such freedom.

It restrains appetites, greed (thou shalt not covet), lust ( thou shalt not commit adultery), spin (though shalt not bear false witness) and does so by simple rules, rather than letting one do what they want, when you want.

It forgives and accepts anyone, on the condition that said person acknowledges and repents of their sins or at the very least commits to fight the temptation to them.

It gives the absolute freedom to walk away from it, while giving you until the very last second of your life to re-consider before actual judgement is passed.

And worst of all, to those who embrace it the strongest it gives courage, the courage to stand against any slander, any pressure and even die for the sake of Christ rather than sin.

The most important thing to understand is why Christianity is under attack. The human race has a need to worship something greater than themselves. This is our instinctive pull toward God. When we turn from God, that need is still there. Some turn to hero worship of athletes or entertainers. Some worship the person they're dating(or want to date), which ultimately destroys the relationship, because no one can live up to being put on a pedestal in an interpersonal setting.

And far too many end up worshipping a leader. The Man With The Plan, who's going to fulfill their every want and need, and despense perfect justice, and take care of them forever and ever...if they only just have faith. This is why the Left must attack Christianity: They know that as far as worship is concerned, there can be only One, and they want that One to be their guy, not the True God.

There's a reason that the very first Commandment is, "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Because when we turn to the worship of false gods, we eventually discover that it can only end in death, destruction, misery and suffering. How many times have we been taught the same lesson throughout history? Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao and on and on and on, down through the ages. A given leader may, or may not, be intelligent, worthy of respect and a good thing for a country, but reagardless, he is still just a man, imperfect and prone to temptation. Seeing him as anything else is a grave mistake, and the consequences will be dire. Looks like we're due for yet another lesson.

The Cold Civil War is fair joined now. For a long while half the Republic has
focused on the common threads that bind us while the other half has busily been
snipping them in twain. Well, all right then. No more compromise, no more
common ground, no more accommodation with people who have contempt for us. No
more "meet in the middle" for people unwilling to actually meet in the
middle.

I for one return their contempt with interest. I reject their
assertion that they are smarter or better than I, simply because they have
swallowed whole an unexamined dogma of centralized Statist (I should say
Fascist) control by an unelected and unaccountable so-called "elite". At least
their position is now in the open, with no more trying to shade the truth with a
soft marketing spin. Their intent is well announced. Fine. So is
mine.

The lines are drawn. The good news is that this brings clarity,
that we each of us must choose one side or the other. Me, I like the side that
makes The Village Voice want to call this one of the 20 worst songs of the
year. It's the kicked dog that yelps.

I've been saying it for a while, now. Pick. A. Side. Freedom, or slavery. The totalitarian State, or the Sovereign Individual. Choose now, or the time will soon arrive when the choice will be made for you.

Why? Because I'm damn sick and tired of hearing a bunch of idiots hollering about '2016' or '2014' or 'third party' or 'when Joe Republican runs for office, he'll get in and he'll fix everything!' If any of this applies to you, then you are dumber than a liberal. Oh, so we're going to vote our way out of this? Yeah, and maybe I'll propel myself to Neptune by lighting my farts. It's more of a possibility than any suggestion from those who still believe in a working political process.

Now, much as I might like to go all Nostradamus here, I just learned that WRSA beat me to this conclusion by some time--like over four years.

I submit that if one is dispassionate in one's analysis of today's political scene, the inescapable conclusion is that a voting booth is also not going to save traditional American freedom and its servants.

And the big question remains - what do the "holy electoral process" advocates plan to do when the slavering Majority of government minions has voted to:

- seize your guns and ammunition;

- confiscate the majority of your income;

- limit your access to your retirement savings;

- tax your real estate into foreclosure;

- further transform your children's education into multi-culti State worship;

- restrict your ability to criticize and denounce the Government upon pain of imprisonment;

Why, the plan is to take back the fillintheblank or get fillintheblank to run on our ticket, and then, by golly, we'll get this country back on the right track!! And if that doesn't work, why...we'll demand a third party!!

26 January 2013

He told me that America has given him many opportunities that he never would've
had in Mexico, that his children are the most educated members of his family,
that one of them was going to college, something that he never dreamed of being
possible. He said he and his wife have studied hard to learn about America and
were about to become full fledged citizens.

But something bothered him. Why
are the crooks and jefes (politicians) trying to change this country? Why aren't
they paying attention to the Yellowed Paper? Why are they trying to disarm the
people? Was it about control? Corruption? Why?

I was having a hard time
at first understanding his accent until I quit trying. I thought it was cool
that he referred to the Constitution as the Yellowed Paper. Very articulate
without realizing it. Poetry with his simple language, you know.

25 January 2013

I linked to Lawdog's original post back in late 2010, giving him the 2nd-ever W&POAward ForExtreme Cleverness, and now I'm linking to his repost and elaboration on it. If this continues, I'm pretty sure this blog will send you back in time.

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

RTWT. Over and over again until it sinks in. And I'll leave you with the relevant excerpt of the comment I posted:

I'll put it on the table: My God-given HUMAN RIGHTS are not up for debate, discussion or 'compromise.' Period. Full stop.

Because that's what it's about, y'all. It's not about a piece of paper or a technicality. It's about OUR HUMAN RIGHTS. To negotiate my right to defense of self, property or country is on the same level of negotiating with a rapist concerning how deep he'll insert it and how long it will last.